The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Y. Illston
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND AU
TO ANSWER THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREAS the Court denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss plaintiff Motorola, Inc.'s Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on March 28, 2011;
WHEREAS the deadline for defendants to answer the SAC was therefore set for April 11, 2011 pursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(a)(4)(A);
WHEREAS plaintiff Motorola, Inc. and defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (collectively "AUO Defendants") have agreed to extend AUO Defendants' time to answer the SAC up to and including April 18, 2011, pending approval of the Court;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, that:
AUO Defendants shall have up to and including April 18, 2011 to file their answer to the SAC.
DATED: April 11, 2011 Nossaman LLP By: CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (CA SBN 81297) NOSSAMAN LLP 50 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4799 Telephone: (415) 398-3600 Facsimile: (415) 398-2438 email@example.com Counsel for Defendants AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA CROWELL & MORING LLP By: JEROME A. MURPHY (pro hac vice) CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiff MOTOROLA, INC.
Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories to this document.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...